If Canada wants to avoid the rise of extremist, anti-immigrant political movements, a new lobby group in Ottawa is saying we need to have a serious debate now.

[...]

According to Statistics Canada, the gap between the earnings of Canadian-born men and immigrant men grew dramatically between 1991 and 2006 - a period when immigration numbers increased dramatically.

Other studies have shown it now takes longer for immigrant families to catch up to Canadian-born families in terms of earnings.

Canada's immigration and refugee system allowed 634,509 people to enter the country in 2009. Of that group, 252,179 were permanent residents compared to 382,330 temporary residents who came as foreign workers or students.

I should also add that I leeched all the links from this thread at freedominion.ca.

Sunday, 26 September 2010

While Ottawa likes to boast about how well our economy is doing, compared with others, the reality is that we are not doing all that well. Indeed, complacency about the challenges we face is a real danger.

Here are two reasons why we should be concerned:

First, we are not creating the jobs we need to enable Canadians to achieve a middle-class lifestyle. While job numbers have increased, we also have to look at where those jobs are coming from, and their quality.

If we compare the employment picture in August, the most recent month available, with August 2006, the year before the Great Recession began, we find the number of jobs between the two Augusts increased by 727,500.

But 75 per cent of these new jobs were in the public sector, jobs that depend on tax revenues. Moreover, 64 per cent of all new jobs were part-time. In this period, manufacturing lost 348,000 jobs.

[...]

Second, young people today are having a truly tough time, even if they go to college or university. Too many young Canadians are having to settle for temporary or contract jobs while others cannot find jobs that match their education.

Many Canadians in the 15 to 24 age group are still students, but those who are no longer members of the student population — and this includes many high-school, college and university graduates — had 168,000 fewer full-time jobs and 77,000 more part-time jobs.

These employment problems suggest we are not building an economy that can deliver the rising expectations we enjoyed in the past.These expectations were based on the belief that if we studied and worked hard we could expect a good job with a rising standard of living.

Instead, we face the prospect of an insecure future and a declining standard of living. Over the coming decade, there’s a good chance there will be little income growth as we struggle with a slow recovery from the Great Recession and eliminate deficits from the stimulus spending necessary to avert a depression.

The once-robust housing market has sagged. The trade surplus has vanished. And economists across the spectrum have slashed their growth forecasts. In the last eight days alone, the danger signals have come thick and fast.

• On Sept. 9, Statistics Canada reported that the country had chalked up a record trade deficit of $2.7 billion in July.

• The following day, StatsCan issued a dismal labour force report. The unemployment rate climbed to 8.1 per cent in August. The private sector shed jobs.

• This past Monday brought a double dose of bad news. The Canadian Payroll Association reported that six out of every 10 Canadians would be in financial difficulty if their paycheque were delayed for even a week. That was followed by a StatsCan report showing household debt had risen by 6 per cent during the recovery to a record $1.48 trillion.

• That was followed Wednesday by another monthly drop in manufacturing sales, with motor vehicles leading the way.

Despite these claims Ottawa intends to introduce more that 250,000 immigrants into this economic environment this year and the years to come as well as an almost equal number of temporary foreign workers. The rational is silly at best: they are needed to "prepare Canada for the recovery". When this recovery will happen is anyone's guess.

The David Crane article is an op-ed piece against thisToronto Star editorial titled "Immigration: New citizens serve us well". It doesn't state how "new citizens serve us well" but I'm sure many Canadians will differ (just read the comments to the editorial for starters).

Citing what I believe is this Nanos poll the editorial claims "roughly 80 per cent of us see a steady influx of newcomers as 'a key positive' of life here" thus implying a whopping majority of us "support" immigration. The editorial is jumping to conclusions and playing fast and loose with the findings.

For starters that 80% is a combination of those who agree (65.3%) or somewhat agree (16.1%) with the statement that immigration is beneficial. Also, the question itself is non-specific and that's a problem. Immigration is a good thing and I'm not surprised to see sizable majority support it but when you get into specifics a different picture may emerge. For instance the same poll reveals that 38.9% want the numbers sustained, not increased, and 32.4% want immigration numbers reduced which means 72% of respondents do not want immigration numbers increased despite saying immigration is beneficial. You see, the problem is too much immigration. The other problem is that we are accepting too much immigration from too few source countries resulting in a kind of immigration that is colonizing in character. It is not nation building; it is population replacement.

Even if there is 100% support for immigration it is irrelevant if the economic environment is not there to support a considerable influx. We are in that kind of economic environment and it is harmful to stay the course. The last government to reduce Canada's immigration intake was the Trudeau Liberals in the early 1980s in response to an economic downturn and it was a non-issue; understood as a rational course of action. Today that is almost impossible without ignorantly being branded a bigot, xenophobe, or racist first even though a dramatic reduction in intake targets is what is best for the country and recently arrived immigrants. This just shows how debased and co-opted the discussion has become.

In Denmark the Danish People's Party secured 25 seats in the nation's 2007 elections on 13.8% of the vote. Like the Sweden Democrats they were campaigning for a stricter immigration policy.

These elections are significant because these parties are enjoying support in what are considered Europe's most tolerant and progressive nations. They are not exceptions but are following a trend in Europe.

Another trend taking root is the erection of walls or fences to secure borders. The United States and Israel have shared considerable criticism for constructing walls that reinforce their borders to control the flow of smuggled goods and illegal migrants; but they are not the only countries doing so.

India is currently in the process of constructing a fence along its shared border with Bangladesh. The reasons are familiar: to control the flow of illegal goods and migrants. It should be noted that Bangladesh is almost completely engulfed by India.

Mexico, with no sense of hypocrisy, is building a wall along its southern border with Guatemala. The reasons are no different: to control the influx of contraband and illegal migrants from Guatemala into Mexico.

Here is a list of countries that have built fences to control the migration of people.

So it seems the world trend is to secure borders either with a strict immigration policy or with a physical barrier or both. Canadian hubris compels us to imagine that the world "looks to Canada" for inspiration when it comes to formulating policy but that is more fantasy than reality. Were it true than we shouldn't expect to see an increasing desire to restrict the influx of migrants into foreign lands. Clearly Canada is in a world of her own.

Wednesday, 22 September 2010

After you read the title of this post what kind of workplace did you imagine? What was the racial make up of the employees? Who were the racists? Who were the victims? Read the post title again and hold that thought.

Now read the following:

Part of the problem seemed to lie in the new Employment Equity Commission. The commission had been set up by Rae specifically to advance the cause of disadvantaged groups, including racial minorities. Most staff members hired were from the four disadvantaged groups. But soon it was torn itself by racial animosity. Julie Mason, former director of communications for the federal NDP, worked for about one year at the commission. She later called it the most racist workplace she had ever experienced.

"I've never seen anything like it," Mason said. "It was absolutely vicious.... The blacks hated the Indians; the Indian were the most antisemitic; everyone hated the lesbians and gays.... There was a real pecking order. At the bottom were people with disabilities. Next to the bottom were white women. There were no white men, not until they had to bring in John DeMarco [a senior bureaucrat in Citizenship] to fix up the mess."

The above is from the book Rae Days: The rise And Follies Of The NDP by Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom and can be found in the chapter titled "Same Boat Now" (pp. 215-16 to be precise). The book is about Bob Rae and his years leading the NDP government of Ontario.

Some people have a hard time defining the word irony let alone using it correctly but if anyone has a hard time understanding it then let the above do the explaining. How fitting that a commission called the Employment Equity Commission; established by a socialist government to address assumed systemic discrimination in the workplace; staffed by people of alleged "disadvantaged groups"; a symbol of multicultural harmony free of the negative influences of the evil white man be described as "the most racist workplace" ever experienced by a member of an alleged disadvantaged group. And the icing on the cake is that a white man was needed to "fix up the mess."

I am of the opinion that the more racially diverse a society becomes the more racist it will be and if the workplace environment of the Employment Equity Commission can be taken as a working model of the liberal multicultural social fantasy, of Canada's future, then I seem justified in thinking that. This is because immigration fueled multiculturalism destroys a common identity that can unite a people and in its place a tribal mentality takes root.

Sunday, 19 September 2010

Here is an interesting read. It is illustrative of the biased (dare I say deceitful?) reporting of our public broadcaster in the service of its pet hobbies; multiculturalism and its yang, mass immigration.

From the Winnipeg Sun we read:

My sources tell me Mohamed Jama is sitting comfortably in a hotel in Bosaso, Somalia right now. No extremists holding him up at gunpoint at the inn, nor in a government-chartered plane on the tarmac of the local airport.

That despite what the CBC was reporting all week.

I notice our public broadcaster hasn’t issued a retraction or a correction on their story, after being duped by Jama that he was under siege by gun-toting extremists.

The Canada Border Services Agency has confirmed repeatedly that the deportation was carried out as planned and without incident and that there were no gun-toting extremists firing at a plane Jama was in, as the CBC reported.

Instead, the CBC perpetuates the story that somehow the Government of Canada did the wrong thing by deporting Jama to a dangerous, war-torn country and they rely on a phony story cooked up by Jama to prop up their editorial position. Pretty pathetic.

At this point, whatever happens to Jama is no longer our problem. He was a repeat, violent offender who showed no signs whatsoever of changing his ways. CBSA had an obligation — for the safety of Canadians — to deport the refugee, notwithstanding any dangers he might face back home.

The position that we should compromise the safety of Canadians in favour of Jama’s safety back home is misguided. I think the people who hold that position would change their tune very quickly if they or their families became Jama’s next victims had we not deported him.

Canadian Immigration Report juxtaposes the above story with the CBC one here.

It is a given that the sources of news reporting have a political slant that they are trying to front under the guise of journalism. Objectivity has been discarded long ago if it ever existed at all.

But these media outlets are typically private enterprises. They can report on what they want in the way they want.

I am aware of the implications of such a system on a democratic society and on the notion of informed consent which is why alternative media sources are invaluable.

However, the CBC is a publicly financed institution therefore it doesn't enjoy the liberties of a privately owned company. It is constrained by its obligation to the taxpayers to whom it owes its continued existence; to the tax dollars Canadians are forced to pay by law. It should function as objectively as possible so as not to show favouritism and thus be in the service of Canadians who are of all ideological persuasions.

It is clear that this is not the case. The CBC has become co-opted by left leaning cultural elites who use it as their soap box for propaganda purposes. And on you dime whether you like it or not! This is a key difference that separates the CBC and its news wing from the private sector. If you don't like the slant of a particular newspaper then you don't have to buy it or read it. If you don't like the slant of a particular news channel then you don't have to watch it or subscribe to it. Canadians through their tax dollars support the CBC whether they want to or not. That being the case then how about some conservative content?

CBC news routinely delivers select stories spun to support their world view and presented as if objective fact. In this sense they behave like Fox news. Since multiculturalism and its partner in crime, mass immigration, are favourites of the left then can we expect anything other than systemic cheerleading of both? No wonder Canadians are so misinformed about either issue.

Thursday, 16 September 2010

The Institute for Research on Public Policy has found that, even with postsecondary education from a Canadian institution, newcomers who arrive in Canada over the age of 18 are more likely to be underemployed, or even unemployed, than both their Canadian-born peers and those who come to the country at an earlier age.

"The earlier in life immigrants arrive, the more their academic paths will resemble those of their Canadian-born counterparts, and the easier it will be for them to master one of the official languages in Canada," said Maude Boulet, one of the study's authors and an expert in industrial relations at the Universite de Montreal.

Co-author Brahim Boudarbat, a former University of B.C. labour economics professor who now teaches at UdeM, said the difference comes down largely to linguistic ability and cultural integration.

"One interesting thing that we found is that immigrants who come very young make almost the same [education] choices as those who are Canadian-born do" when it comes to fields and levels of study, Boudarbat said.

"It matches the native labour market."

There are few things we can take away from this.

The first is that it suggests that the problems that have plagued post-1990 immigrants still exist today. This means that things have not gotten better but have either stayed the same or have gotten worse. It makes it clearer that the system is not working; that we are importing too many people most of whom are ill-equipped to compete in the labour market.

Secondly it reinforces that language proficiency in either English or French is paramount when it comes to landing a suitable job in Canada. Yet, we routinely import en masse immigrants who have no command of either even in a functional sense.

Thirdly it tells us that the children of immigrants are not interested in the jobs that Canadians won't do either. They end up competing for jobs and schooling placement that are already in high demand by Canadians.

So what is the point of the immigration system exactly when we are importing labour that businesses are clearly not interested in hiring? How can Canada maintain a viable labour pool when it is introducing people into it who cannot speak either English or French? To what benefit is it to Canadians when the children of immigrants just end up competing with their children for school placements and jobs? Job vacancies will remain in "jobs Canadians don't want to do". (It should be noted that immigrants do not want to do those jobs either but are forced to do so for the sake of survival.)

Canada currently has an 8.1% national unemployment rate during a recessionary period. Previous studies have shown that immigrants who enter Canada in such an unstable economic environment tend to take longer to meet Canadians on an economic level if they do at all.

So what is the government doing about it? Well, you will be pleased to know that the province of Manitoba in partnership with the federal government announced a $15 million project, phase 2 of something called the Canadian Immigrant Integration Program, to provide "Manitoba nominees in China and the Philippines with pre-arrival settlement orientation and labour-market preparation services." Sheesh!

We don't need more immigrants especially form Asia where 60% of all of Canada's immigrants come from (making a mockery of the principle of diversity). We need less and more selective immigration. This will benefit the immigrants already here and those to come.

Wednesday, 15 September 2010

A couple of polls suggest that a majority of Canadians are in opposition to Canada's immigration system.

The first poll, reported here by the Toronto Sun, reveals that a majority of Canadians want all the Sri Lankan Tamil migrants who arrived by boat off the coast of British Columbia to be sent back.

By a margin of five to one, Canadians say the government should reject the almost 500 would-be refugees from Sri Lanka who arrived last week.

The Leger Marketing poll of 1,500 people, released exclusively to QMI Agency, was conducted from Aug. 2 to Aug. 4 as the ship travelled towards the British Columbia coast.

Asked which statement best described their own opinion on what should be done with the ship, which may include members of the banned Tamil Tiger terrorist group, 60% agreed with the statement: "They should be turned away - the boat should be escorted back to Sri Lanka by the Canadian Navy."

Just 17% agreed with the statement: "They should be accepted into Canada as political refugees."

A significant number, 20%, said they did not know which answer to choose and 4% did not answer.

Alberta ranked highest with 74% of respondents there saying send the boat back and just 11% saying let them stay, while Quebec was the second highest with 64% opting to send the boat back and 15% saying the passengers should stay.

I happen to agree with the Canadian Tamil Congress in their assessment of the poll results:

The Canadian Tamil Congress believes the poll results are a reflection of feelings towards the immigration system, not Tamils themselves.

“I think there is a growing frustration,” said spokesperson Manjula Selvarajah.

I think he is right. I don't think Canadians are angry at the Tamils just because they are Tamils but what their arrival, and the way in which they came here, represents. What they are becoming angry at is unfettered immigration and its effects on Canadian society. They are angry at a government made impotent by the Singh decision, a government ineptitude at dealing with it, and a government indifferent to the concerns of a growing majority of Canadians. This leads me to the next poll reported here in the Globe and Mail as well as here.

From the second link we read:

More Canadians are questioning whether immigration is benefitting the country, with Albertans and Ontarians voicing concern over the role of illegal immigrants in Canadian society, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.

The online survey of a representative sample of 1,007 Canadian adults also found that half of respondents would not allow the Tamil migrants who arrived in Canada a few weeks ago to stay in the country as refugees.

Overall, 46 per cent of respondents (+5 since August 2009) say immigration is having a negative effect in Canada, while 34 per cent (-3) believe it is having a positive effect. Albertans (56%) and Ontarians (55%) are more likely to view immigration in a negative light than respondents in all other provinces.

The arrival of the Tamil ship may have skewed the numbers a little but I think Canadians are slowly waking up to the full effects of Canada's mass immigration system. And they don't like what they see.

Citing improved conditions in the country Australia feels confident enough to deny asylum to those originating from Sri Lanka.

So let's recap shall we.

The UNHRC has assisted in the return of 852 Tamil refugees to Sri Lanka from India in the first six months of 2010. Indeed, citing improved security conditions in the country the UN has gone so far as to state that countries of the world should no longer presume someone fleeing Sri Lanka to be a genuine refugee.

Just over 70% of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees have returned to Sri Lanka for various reasons bringing into to question the validity of their asylum claims. In one year alone 8,600 Sri Lankans with refugee claims pending in Canada applied to the Sri Lankan High Commission in Ottawa for travel documents so they could go back to Sri Lanka for visits.

Martin Collacott, former Canadian high commissioner to Sri Lanka from 1982 to 1986, has written in the National Post "the suggestion that Tamils are being persecuted as a people in Sri Lanka, however, is nonsense and is a myth propagated by Tamil extremists."

An internal Citizenship and Immigration Canada communication noted that “returnees (to Sri Lanka) are dealt with professionally and, unless there are outstanding criminal warrants, deportees and other returnees are simply returned to the community on arrival after brief and professionally conducted interviews.” Also, “other countries have successfully returned large numbers of failed asylum seekers, and Sri Lanka is a safe destination for unsuccessful refugee applicants.”

I don't know how much clearer it can be when even the United Nations is saying Sri Lanka is now a relatively safe country for its Tamil population to return to. With that said Canada should do the same as Australia and send back anyone making an asylum claim in Canada who of Sri Lankan origin.

As Canada's economy cools amid fears of a double dip recession in the United States there is speculation that the stubbornly high unemployment rate will be with us for some time.

What relief is there for the unemployed when they can expect another 250,000 immigrants to be injected into the labour pool this year added with some 200,000 temporary foreign workers? Where is the compassion for them?

Official unemployment figures are typically lower than actuality since those who have given up looking for work are not counted. Nor does it reflect the character of the labour market. It does not distinguish between a job for a day and a job for life with benefits. Someone who works once a week is considered employed.

Instead we are told that we need these immigrants to "prepare for the recovery" which will be when exactly is anyone's guess. This excuse to maintain a mass immigration regime in the face of cooling, even downward, economy is disingenuous. When the Canadian economy was booming we were told we need mass immigration to fill job vacancies particularly ones Canadians will not do. So it seems that when the economy is up we need more immigrants. And when the economy is down we need more immigrants? I'm confused. How unhealthy does the economy have to be before we seriously consider reducing immigration targets? How many Canadians have to be out of work?

Another consideration is this: why are we importing workers from economies that are booming? India and China are outperforming the rest of the world in GDP growth. Why are we bringing in immigrants from those countries? They have an unfair advantage with Canadians in that they can always return if things go sour in Canada. Canadians do not have that option. Indian and Chinese immigrants can effectively try their luck in two labour markets whereas Canadians only have the one. This is unfair.

A moratorium is not a bad idea. This way we can get the unemployed back to work before looking overseas. Right now its "let them eat cake".

This post is prompted by thisToronto Star article. It is about India's vow "to crack down on unscrupulous immigration agents".

I'm skeptical about how serious India is. It's overseas population provide export markets for Indian cultural goods and services as well as muscle to influence the political and economic direction of a country to favour India's interests. I don't see why it would want to curb it's unofficial colonial program by hampering it in any fashion.

The consulate was opened in 2004 by the Liberal Party of Canada at an operating cost of $25 million a year to reward Sikh voters for their support. Sikh's are a well organized voting bloc in Canada and all of Canada's political parties are aware of this. To one-up the competition the Liberal's opened the consulate while ignoring warnings that Punjab is a hotbed of documentation fraud and the consulate will only expose Canada to more of it. And that is just what happened and since votes are at stake the Conservatives have done nothing to shut it down.

Instead we are entreated to the intellectual bankruptcy of the likes of that nitwit Olivia Chow as well as Jason Kenney, Canada's current minister responsible for immigration, who is in ethnic vote pandering mode.

In seems to them that only high acceptance rates for visas and permanent residency applications are the only proofs needed to illustrate that Canada has a working and fair system. According to the article Olivia Chow, who is the NDP's immigration critic, "took to Twitter in Canada, writing that it’s 'unacceptable' that one out of two Indians who apply at the Canadian mission in Chandigarh for a visitor’s visa are refused. Chow also wrote that only 29 per cent of student visas are approved." In response, "Kenney fired back with his posts, writing 42 per cent of student visas are now approved in Chandigarh and that the overall approval rate there for visas is now 48 per cent."

The problem with their line is thinking hasn't escaped everyone.

Some Canadian diplomats have worried that using approval rates as benchmarks is dangerous territory.

“If the refusal rate is 90 per cent because our immigration agents have determined 90 per cent of applicants are at risk to overstay or present other risks, then that’s just what it should be,” said a former Canadian diplomat posted in India. “It’s not something that should be used as a metric for success.”

That is in response to belligerent Punjabi accusations that 90% of all applications made at the consulate in Chandigarh are rejected as if implying that Canada has no right to deny them entry to the country. I would deny them entry based on that attitude alone.

If 492 bogus "refugees" are enough to get Canadians riled up then I can only image how angry they will be if they knew how Punjabis try to defraud Canadians and their government on a daily basis at Canada's consulate in Chandigarh, Punjab. To me they are the same breed of people because they are using deceit to enter the country. If they have no qualms in doing that to us then why should we allow them into Canada in the first place?

But more to the point is to ask what is the point of a consulate in Chandigarh, Punjab, India if not for political reasons? It's not like Punjabis are India's A students so why the favourtism? Can they not make their applications in Mumbai like everyone else? Why not a consulate in Tamil Nadu as well?

The consulate is a waste of money. It is plagued by fraud and aids in the importation of a people who are of questionable benefit to the country. I see little need for its existence. It needs to be shut down!

Monday, 6 September 2010

As if we do not need another reason to reduce immigration from Asia we have this to read about. A "poor man's opium" called doda has been introduced into Canada by south Asian immigrants and now it is a growing problem in British Columbia. From the CBC we read:

Consumption of the opiate doda, an illegal and addictive concoction made from dried poppy pods, is out of control in Metro Vancouver's South Asian community, say experts in Surrey.

Dr. Gulzar Cheema said doda has been popular in the South Asian community for years and is currently sold under the counter in many pawnshops, video stores and other retail outlets.

Doda is a powder made by grinding the seed pods of opium poppies and is usually used to make a type of tea.

Police have ignored the problem for so long, it's now as common as marijuana in some circles, said Cheema.

The ground-up poppy powder called doda was sold openly in some South Asian stores in British Columbia just two years ago, but now it’s the target of a police crackdown – including what the RCMP are calling Canada’s largest opium poppy bust.

On Monday, Chilliwack RCMP’s drug unit discovered a 2.8-hectare field planted with 60,000 opium poppies, which the Mounties say is the largest drug seizure of its kind ever known in Canada. Two men, aged 31 and 24, who were tending the field have been arrested, and police are recommending charges of production and possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking.

Police are not saying if the two are the only suspects in the multimillion-dollar drug scheme.

Indeed, Amritsar is the holiest city to the world's Sikhs. It is located in Punjab, India. It is also India's heroin capital according to this report that states "its proximity to Pakistan and Afghanistan have created a city where seventy percent of young people are addicted to heroin."

Vancouver has the inglourious honour of being considered the heroin capital of North America. I don't know how true that is but we can assuredly agree that it is the heroine capital of Canada. It is also has the largest Asian community (which I include south Asian and south-east Asian) in Canada and quite possibly all of North America. Coincidence? I don't think so and I believe the two are related.

Asian gangs more or less control the illegal drug trade in Canada. It's hard to believe that biker gangs alone are responsible for the production and distribution of narcotics when those arrested with the largest drug busts in Canadian history have Asian names and faces.

Sunday, 5 September 2010

The National Post published a piece by the inveterate misandrist Amanda Marcotte. You can read it here if you want but I am not interested in the content of what she wrote (however I will say it does come off as a work of apologetics for glorified child-like selfishness).

I do want to concentrate on the graphs that accompanied the print edition of the piece. They illustrate that the social phenomenon of the childless woman in the United States is growing among all income groups and races/ethnicities.

One graph illustrated that "nearly one-in-five American women ends her childbearing years without having borne a child, compared with one-in-ten in the 1970s".

In respect to education those with the most education tended to have the least number of children however "women with less than a high school diploma, whose likelihood of bearing no children rose 66% from 1994 to 2008".

Another set of graphs showed childlessness is on the increase for women across all ethnic groups and this is what I want to focus on. It showed a bar graph for whites, blacks, hispanics, and one for Asians and Pacific Islanders. Whites have the highest rate of childless women at 20% but had the lowest increase in comparison to the others. Blacks and Hispanics jumped from around 12.5% to about 17% whereas Asians and Pacific Islanders jumped from around 12.5% to about 16%.

The graphs are not accurate but they illustrate the trend that immigrants or their children are for the most part adopting the social norms of the host society. This shouldn't be confused with cultural adaptation and assimilation but a reflection of the fact that it is expensive to live in the west and smaller families are a reflection of that.

This trend is the same in Canada. I recall several StasCan reports that suggest this. Two reported that immigrant women were having as few as many children as their Canadian counterparts. With twenty five years of near historic levels of immigration behind us Canada's birth rate stubbornly hovers below replacement levels, 1.66 being the latest. Speaking of the birth rate almost all ethnic groups fall below it or on par with it with Muslims rising above it and Hindus as well but only slightly. (I should say that I'm recalling that data from memory but since I'm too lazy to look up the data itself you're going to have to trust me on this.)

Canada's birth rate remains below replacement levels and mass immigration has done nothing to positively affect this. We are often told about the benefits the children of immigrants bring but if population growth is a goal then it is clear they haven't brought any benefits in this capacity. It is clear that the children of immigrants, no matter how many they have, will have as few as many children as Canadians if they have children at all.

If population growth is what is wanted then upping the birth rate is what the government should concern itself with not mass immigration. As long as the birth rate remains below replacement levels it means Canada will have to keep bringing in more and more immigrants like some ponzi scheme and like all ponzi schemes it eventually will come crashing down. It is simply unsustainable.

The 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution grants automatic citizenship to anyone born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. At least that is what is currently legally understood.

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

The key word here is “jurisdiction.” Does that refer only to persons who legally immigrated and filed the proper paperwork, and to children born in the U.S.whose parents came here legally?

I don't agree with the law and it should be changed. Canadian citizenship should only be given to those born to parents with status in Canada. Non-status residents; such as illegal immigrants, those on a visa, refugees with cases pending, temporary workers, etc.; should not have Canadian citizenship bestowed upon their children if they are born in Canada during their stay.

Changing the law to reflect this wouldn't put Canada out of line with the international community. In fact it would be closer to the norm.

The print edition of the National Post provided a list of countries and their citizenship rules for children born in their territories. Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom require some form of residency status or citizenship status of at least one or sometimes both parents in order for the child to inherit citizenship. Some countries, such as France, provide exceptions to children who would otherwise be stateless but that aside I don't see anything wrong with expecting either one or both parents to have some form of legal residency.

We have exceptions for foreign diplomats for whom Canadian citizenship laws do not apply to their Canadian born children. ThisMontreal Gazette article informs us:

Twenty years after Deepan Budlakoti was born at the old Grace Hospital in Ottawa, the jailed businessman is now facing deportation from Canada — his birthplace and home all his life.

The Immigration and Refugee Board has scheduled an inadmissibility hearing for later this summer, when the case against the Ottawa man will be revealed, according to a spokesman.

[...]

Though the federal government won’t publicly say why they want Budlakoti out of the country, the Citizenship Act says that if your parents are foreign diplomats or under their employ at time of birth, or without citizenship papers, you are not considered Canadian even though you were born here.